Skip to content
Subscribe

Presidential Debate Commission Under Fire – Again

Presidential Debate Commission Under Fire – Again
Published:

It has been a rough year so far for the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The group, which organizes the fall presidential debates and determines who will appear on the debate stage, may finally be forced to change its ways.

In February, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ruled against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the government body tasked with regulating groups like the CPD, in Level the Playing Field, et al v. FEC. Chutkan reasoned that the rules governing participation in the presidential debates were decided unfairly and arbitrarily.

The current debate rules require candidates to reach 15% in 5 national polls picked by the CPD in order to appear on the presidential debate stage. Candidates also must be on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance at winning an electoral majority.

The FEC said it will not appeal the ruling. It will still have to comply with Chutkan’s court order by April 3 to provide new decisions on the administrative complaints against the CPD it previously dismissed.

And if the CPD was getting ready to slink back into the shadows, it is not going to be that easy. The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, has decided it will hear Gary Johnson, et al v Commission on Presidential Debates on Friday, April 21.

The case was originally filed back in 2015 by Gov. Gary Johnson, Dr. Jill Stein, the Libertarian and Green Parties, and several affiliated organizations. The plaintiffs sued the CPD, arguing that it violated federal antitrust laws by essentially ensuring that the major parties have a monopoly over presidential elections.

The case was dismissed by federal court Judge Rosemary Collyer in August 2016. The judge ruled that there was little merit to the claim that the CPD is violating antitrust laws and there was no evidence the commission intentionally shuts out minor party presidential candidates.

One of the biggest issues facing this lawsuit is that unlike the FEC, the CPD is a private institution, which allowed Judge Collyer to reason that the CPD had every right to determine its own rules.

Now, however, Johnson and Stein have another shot at making their case. Will they have better luck this time around? Stay tuned. We’ll keep you updated on the appeals process.

Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Presidential Debate Commission Under Fire – Again

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us